Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 1 minute ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 4 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 5 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Batman 9 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Sam Flynn 10 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Jon Guy 12 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (108 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (16 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (10 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (7 posts)
General Police Discussion: City of London Precincts and Divisions involved in the Investigation - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #871  
Old 07-30-2018, 11:12 AM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North Kilttown, Scotland
Posts: 834
Default

The simple solution would have been to have Sarah Lewis look at Hutchinson, wonder why that got skipped.
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #872  
Old 07-30-2018, 12:14 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
The simple solution would have been to have Sarah Lewis look at Hutchinson, wonder why that got skipped.
We don't know that it did.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #873  
Old 07-30-2018, 12:35 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Hi Jon,

We might assume that a streetwise petty criminal such as Isaacs would have known a good deal better than to “toff up” in the heart of Whitechapel during that period in its history.
It was his home Ben, why wouldn't he dress as he pleased?

Quote:
Common sense and a basic regard for his personal safety would have dictated where and when he played fancy dress.
I think your view of a particular dress code required for personal safety in Whitechapel is more born of fiction than reality.

Quote:
No, I did not suggest that Isaacs lacked the money for the outfit. No money was required, that’s the whole point. It was so cheap and unconvincing that the fakery was easily exposed.
You didn't?
Ok, so someone posted this under your name....you might want to contact admin and lodge a complaint.
"There is absolutely no evidence that Isaacs ever attired himself in a manner similar to the Astrakhan man; nor is it likely that he ever had the financial means to pull off even a vaguely convincing facsimile."

Quote:
Contradicting your Pall Mall Gazette article are the sources attesting to crowds of people that threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s office in Shoreditch. No, I do not have my sources to hand at present, but until I locate them - which shouldn’t take too long - by all means accuse me of lying or “guessing”.
Will you need reminding of this commitment, on a daily basis?
My bet is you are confused with the crowds for her funeral, not that you'll ever admit that though.

Quote:
I suggest a little more imagination may be required if you’re claiming that a non-descript labourer hanging around that general vicinity for a very short period would have caused a public outcry. That’s if he was there at all, which he need not have been.
Public outcry?
Just Sarah Lewis, she would have seen him standing there all alone, like he was on Friday morning. She is the one you suggest Hutch was waiting for wasn't it, so Hutch can pick up on any gossip to create this lying tale he decided to give to police?
Have you recognised the error of your ways yet Ben?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #874  
Old 07-30-2018, 01:07 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
The onus is squarely upon you, then, to conjure up an at least moderately convincing scenario that would explain his decision to walk those 12 miles to Whitechapel knowing full well that his “usual” lodgings would close an hour before his anticipated arrival.
Conjuring is your department Ben, from my point of view the reason's why & when he left Romford, are not relevant to his story.
It doesn't matter where he came from that night. He did not say his "usual place" was closed before he met Kelly. So, it's not an issue.

Quote:
You made the exceptionally unconvincing suggestion that bad weather caused him to “shelter” somewhere en route.....
Yep, silly me, English weather is always sunny & warm. I shoulda known you'd get me on that.

Quote:
Hutchinson was not “homeless”, Jon. If you accept the man at his word, he walked 12 miles in attempt to secure lodgings, which he had ample funds to pay for, according to you.
He said he walked the streets all night, ie; homeless.
Is that too complex?

Quote:
....... why did he bother with the 12 mike walk at all if he knew that “option #1”, his usual place, wouldn’t have been open?
Why do you choose to argue about a detail that cannot possibly be known?


Quote:
Well, I’m dying to know what the alternative could possibly be. I’m all ears, Jon. You do understand, presumably, that when Hutchinson initiated contact with the police on 12th, it was the very first time the police hierarchy had ever heard Hutchinson’s name in connection with the ripper investigation? Or are you now disputing even this?
See, you just made another statement, as if it was fact. Yet you do not know if what you said is true.
Another example of guessing Ben?

Quote:
If a “superior” had heard about Hutchinson on Sunday, he would have sent a detective immediately to the Victoria Home to track him down.
Do you think Scotland Yard detectives were just sitting around waiting for suspect sightings to come in?


Quote:
I must have missed the part of this “education” that addressed the cases of witnesses who only warp out of “reluctant to get involved” mode the moment the public inquest closes - the same inquest at which it is revealed that the witness was himself “witnessed” by a passer-by on the night of the crime. It’s almost as if the two events were related.

Nah, couldn’t be.
Reducing your argument down to the finest detail in order to make it sound special - how often do we see this approach?
Witnesses, in murder cases don't always come forward - live with it.
Move on to the next argument.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #875  
Old 07-30-2018, 03:52 PM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
No, Joshua, but it might make you someone who hasn’t researched the subject of Victorian gas lighting in any great depth. A modern day gas lantern of the type used for outdoor activities is not “feeble”, by any means. Such items are mini Blackpool Towers compared to the naked flames under glass houses, which proliferated the streets of London in 1888.

You’ll also note the difference between the surface area of a top or pullover and a very small handkerchief, produced for a fleeting moment 35 meters away.

I’ve never heard of anyone wearing their handkerchiefs in their outer overcoat pockets, nor have I heard of anyone whose abdomen protrudes to such an extent that a watch chain seal can be on display on a dark street underneath two overcoats.

But I suppose some people are anxious for the ripper to be an exotic “interesting” creature, and so bypass these and other common sense considerations.
So many assumptions in that reply, almost all of them wrong.

Nevertheless, for my own amusement - I don't harbour any illusions about convincing you - I experimented tonight using my own camping lantern in the garden. And I hadn't even had a drink.
Adjusting the lantern to match the brightness of a handy 24 watt lamp (yes, modern lanterns are adjustable so can appear as feeble as a Victorian street lamp), stuck it on a pole approximately 6 feet above head height and paced out 38 yards (where I ran into a fence), leaving my glamorous assistant under the lantern to pull various coloured hankies from her pockets in random order. Make of it what you will, but to me the light was more than bright enough to make red ones appear red (and the others not).

For added excitement we repeated the experiment using just a candle in a jam-jar for illumination, and even this provided enough light to make out which hanky was red at over 30 yards, even when folded.

This clearly shows (to me, if to no-one else) that there is nothing inherently unbelievable about Hutchinson's red handkerchief claim, whether he saw it from the end of Dorset Street, from outside Commercial St Chambers or as Kelly and her new companion walked past him at the Queen's Head.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #876  
Old 07-30-2018, 04:28 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post

You’ll also note the difference between the surface area of a top or pullover and a very small handkerchief, produced for a fleeting moment 35 meters away.
25 ft Ben, you're shameless attempt to exaggerate a detail to try win another argument is well known by all the regulars.

Quote:
I’ve never heard of anyone wearing their handkerchiefs in their outer overcoat pockets, nor have I heard of anyone whose abdomen protrudes to such an extent that a watch chain seal can be on display on a dark street underneath two overcoats.
Like I've said before, the black jacket, waistcoat & watch chain, were part of the description, so obviously visible. Which means the astrachan trimmed coat was very likely open, exposing a red pocket handkerchief.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #877  
Old 07-30-2018, 04:42 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post

Lewis described the man she witnessed as 'short and stout.' The reporter described Hutchinson as of 'military appearance.' Does one usually use this latter phrase to describe someone that is short and stout? How do you know it is even the same man?
Hi RJ

For what it's worth, Lewis was a good distance away across the street, but the police, we might assume, sat face to face, if taking down his story.
Being of 'military appearance' suggested to me Hutchinson looked presentable & tidy, possibly hair cut & any facial hair trimmed to look smart. His attire possibly well kept.
Size & stature could be anything.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #878  
Old 07-30-2018, 04:55 PM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Being of 'military appearance' suggested to me Hutchinson looked presentable & tidy, possibly hair cut & any facial hair trimmed to look smart. His attire possibly well kept.
Size & stature could be anything.
Wasn't it compulsory at the time for anyone in the army to have a moustache?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #879  
Old 07-30-2018, 05:58 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,802
Default

Not compulsory Joshua, no.
There are a good number of British soldier group photo's from the 19th century and while the moustache was popular, it was not worn by every soldier.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #880  
Old 07-30-2018, 06:21 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,866
Default

RJ,
Two quite different situations,might be expected to provide two different answers.Lewis saw the man for a very short period of time,in poor light,wearing an overcoat.Short people in overcoats do tend to appear stouter(my observation).The reporter was able to study Hutchinson for a much more lengthy period of time,in much better light,and perhaps without a top coat.I have served under short stout senior officers,who presented a military appearance.

As I tend to view Huttchinson as suspect rather than as a witness,the length of time before putting in an appearance,can be assessed differently.From some coming forward immediately,to other varying lengths of time before doing so,depends on several factors.In Hutchinson's case the telling factor is that he decided to come forward in the guise of a witness,which could and should, have been done no later than Saturday.He could add nothing to his story by waiting
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.